U.S. jobless rate unexpectedly fell to 7.8 percent in September, the lowest since President Barack Obama took office in January 2009, from 8.1 percent as employers took on more part-time workers, a report showed.

The numbers are cooked. The 114,000 jobs you referenced is less growth than the month before, which was less than the month before that._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

Nobody's talking about it because nobody believes it. The percentage is down only because the administration reclassified a huge number of people as "not seeking work" based on having been unemployed for a long time. It's already backfiring, because everybody knows.

Last edited by Bones McCracker on Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total

Nobody's talking about it because nobody belirves it. The percentage is down only because the administration reclassified a huge number of people as "not seeking work" based on having been unemployed for a long time. It's already backfiring, because everybody knows.

really? because using google news I did not see much backfiring._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

still, numbers are going down - and are the lowest since Obama took over.

Even if you take the numbers at face value, it is still far short of what was promised three years ago._________________The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell

There are 23,000,000 people out of work, we add 100,000 jobs, and suddenly the sun is shining? I guess must be the "math" Obama was bragging about.

100 000 per month.

Using their numbers (118,000 jobs added, that being a 0.3% change, over one month), we went from 39,333,333 unemployed to 39,215,333. And that's supposed to be good news (assuming their numbers bear some semblance to reality).

That's like throwing a drowning man a toothpick and expecting him to be happy about it.

oh yeah, bunch of irrational Obama haters who can not stomach good news.

The boost in employment mainly comes from thousands of rape-ublican muck-spreaders paid to spout anti-Obama gibberish on internet forums. If they were honest, they'd have to admit they need him more than anyone. Their own jobs wouldn't exist without him.

The numbers are cooked. The 114,000 jobs you referenced is less growth than the month before, which was less than the month before that.

Indeed. It's not the U6 numbers, it's the "household survey" where they call a relatively small number of houses and ask "are you working". The U6 numbers(actual statistics from industry) are as bleak as ever._________________People Of Love

The numbers are cooked. The 114,000 jobs you referenced is less growth than the month before, which was less than the month before that.

Indeed. It's not the U6 numbers, it's the "household survey" where they call a relatively small number of houses and ask "are you working". The U6 numbers(actual statistics from industry) are as bleak as ever.

Unless I am confused (always a possibility), the U1 through U6 estimates all come from the household survey. See here from the BLS

In addition to the U3 and U6 numbers (which measure different things), there is also a difference between the household survey and the payroll survey. See here for more on that.

The numbers are cooked. The 114,000 jobs you referenced is less growth than the month before, which was less than the month before that.

Indeed. It's not the U6 numbers, it's the "household survey" where they call a relatively small number of houses and ask "are you working". The U6 numbers(actual statistics from industry) are as bleak as ever.

Unless I am confused (always a possibility), the U1 through U6 estimates all come from the household survey. See here from the BLS

In addition to the U3 and U6 numbers (which measure different things), there is also a difference between the household survey and the payroll survey. See here for more on that.

++

Also, the measures for employment (u1 to u6 etc) haven't been revised since 1994. I thought BK had said that the administration had reclassified a whole pile of people. I don't see how they could have done it, without revising the criteria._________________He who calls for full employment calls for war!

It's small potatoes, no matter how you look at it. We still have a huge problem on our hands either way. But, this is the kind of thinking that has people thinking skeptically about the numbers:

Quote:

The official unemployment rate fell a miraculous .3% in a month, from 8.1% to 7.8% just in time for the November elections. This comes a month after the BLS miraculously found a few hundred thousand new jobs they had "previously missed" this year dropping the official rate from 8.3% to 8.1%, last month. This would be good news, if it meant that more Americans were finding work in proportion. Unfortunately, this is NOT the case. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), works for the Executive Branch, for the White House, for Obama, and says there were 114,000 new jobs in September, but there are 465,000 fewer unemployed workers in September. The difference of 351,000 appears to be unaccounted for.

Somehow, though only 144,000 people found work last month, there are 775,000 more people employed than in August. And this is irrespective of those laid off in September.

The question is how do you reduce the unemployment rate so dramatically while adding only as many jobs as needed to maintain the current rate? The answer, for the BLS, is to reduce the number of unadjusted 16-19 year old males you include in the Labor Force, dramatically. This allows you to show realistic numbers in other blocks, including the "adjusted" numbers, while lowering the unemployment rate. Then you reduce the number of "unadjusted" unemployed by 954,000 instead of the 144,000 new jobs, so the "adjusted" number goes down by 456,000, or .3% in a month. This takes 211,000 total people out of the "adjusted" Labor Force, in a month.

Seasonally adjusted," there are fewer Americans in the Labor Force now than in June, officially. That would mean that since June, accounting for those Americans that returned to school, 100,000 more Americans have retired, died, or been thrown in jail or psych wards, than entered working age. That's 211,000 fewer Americans, of all ages, that are in the Labor Force than in September 2011. To get there, they reduced the number of 16+ year old males in the Labor Force by 268,000 since last month, seasonally adjusted. It reduced the number of 16+ year old males in the Labor Force, in unadjusted numbers, by 711,000, and "seasonally adjusted," by 799,000, from last year. Either we have a lot fewer 16+ year old males than last year, or we have a lot more in jail.

Joel Prakken, chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, LLC, said the gains may be solid enough to lower the national unemployment rate. "Continued solid gains in employment since Spring further allay fears that the broad economic recovery may be undermined by a softening trend in employment," he said. "The gain in private employment in September is strong enough to suggest that the national unemployment rate may have declined."

Last month, based on data from August, the national unemployment rate dropped from 8.3 to 8.1 percent. And while a drop in the unemployment rate may seem positive, it was mostly the result of some 368,000 people who gave up their search for work, according to the U.S. Labor Department.